What magazines do you read?

rated by 0 users

This post has
36
Replies |
7
Followers

Recently, a thread of mine about the Economist got the response from people that the Economist is a statist magazine and has a pro-government bias. Interestingly, leftists sometimes also complain that it has a pro-elite bias, claiming that it gives very positive views on bankers and large business firms. And perhaps, people are quite justified in such a view.

It just made me wonder - what magazines do you people read? Which ones do you enjoy and which ones do you find more agreeable to yourself? And which ones do you consider the least biased.

Personally, I read The Economist, because I get really sickened by the blatantly mainstreamed opinions shown by writers in Time magazine and Newsweek. I was absolutely annoyed by an article in Time magazine called "Decade From Hell: And Why The Next One Will Be Better" where the writer said that the downfalls caused in the 2000s were caused by "absolute and unfettered faith in markets" and "reckless deregulation", urging the need for a more strictly controlled realm in business. Meanwhile, Newsweek criticises Chinese manufacturers for setting up businesses in East Timor, just because they are doing businesses with their own money where they feel like, citing that their policies are an exploitation of locals and a destruction of environment. The Economist, compared to these, is written with such a practical and realistic perspective, that you won't see its articles making uninformed claims of how faith in markets destroys nations.

An article in The Economist starts deceptively with an introduction that seems to give a mainstream opinion, and builds on it. Suddenly, it starts tearing that position down with very clearly argued facts. But then after, it withdraws from its own arguments, and then shows that they are still made in absence of certain material information. And then it criticizes the position of the opponents to the idea first stated, but then it again withdraws, and then shows limitations in its own arguments. And so, ultimately, it deconstructs every issue by showing all perspectives taken up on it, and then showing how all of them are wrong, and not entirely complete, and finally makes whatever conclusion that can be made in the most realistic and detached way of looking at the issue. So what it basically does is that it approaches all positions with skepticism, questioning one idea, question oppositions to the idea, and questioning again everything that comes from it.

For example, in their article on climate change skepticism, they criticized politicians for taking positions on scientific issues, because science is supposed to sell doubt, and politics certainty. And thus they even admitted, that politicization of the global warming issue is exactly what hurts the case for studies in climate research, and thus has not allowed the leaked email issue to get more attention and scrutiny. I do not know a single other mass published media which ever did this. What they rightly did was criticize politicians who use a scientific theory to push for a policy and also those who use dissension on a scientific theory to push for another policy, showing that both do harm. All this makes me excuse their occasional pro-intervention or government-oriented ideas, because it then seems more like they suggest these things given that the state exists anyway, rather than because they believe in the almighty powers of the state.

Recently, a thread of mine about the Economist got the response from people that the Economist is a statist magazine and has a pro-government bias. Interestingly, leftists sometimes also complain that it has a pro-elite bias, claiming that it gives very positive views on bankers and large business firms. And perhaps, people are quite justified in such a view.

It just made me wonder - what magazines do you people read? Which ones do you enjoy and which ones do you find more agreeable to yourself? And which ones do you consider the least biased.

Personally, I read The Economist, because I get really sickened by the blatantly mainstreamed opinions shown by writers in Time magazine and Newsweek. I was absolutely annoyed by an article in Time magazine called "Decade From Hell: And Why The Next One Will Be Better" where the writer said that the downfalls caused in the 2000s were caused by "absolute and unfettered faith in markets" and "reckless deregulation", urging the need for a more strictly controlled realm in business. Meanwhile, Newsweek criticises Chinese manufacturers for setting up businesses in East Timor, just because they are doing businesses with their own money where they feel like, citing that their policies are an exploitation of locals and a destruction of environment. The Economist, compared to these, is written with such a practical and realistic perspective, that you won't see its articles making uninformed claims of how faith in markets destroys nations.

An article in The Economist starts deceptively with an introduction that seems to give a mainstream opinion, and builds on it. Suddenly, it starts tearing that position down with very clearly argued facts. But then after, it withdraws from its own arguments, and then shows that they are still made in absence of certain material information. And then it criticizes the position of the opponents to the idea first stated, but then it again withdraws, and then shows limitations in its own arguments. And so, ultimately, it deconstructs every issue by showing all perspectives taken up on it, and then showing how all of them are wrong, and not entirely complete, and finally makes whatever conclusion that can be made in the most realistic and detached way of looking at the issue. So what it basically does is that it approaches all positions with skepticism, questioning one idea, question oppositions to the idea, and questioning again everything that comes from it.

For example, in their article on climate change skepticism, they criticized politicians for taking positions on scientific issues, because science is supposed to sell doubt, and politics certainty. And thus they even admitted, that politicization of the global warming issue is exactly what hurts the case for studies in climate research, and thus has not allowed the leaked email issue to get more attention and scrutiny. I do not know a single other mass published media which ever did this. What they rightly did was criticize politicians who use a scientific theory to push for a policy and also those who use dissension on a scientific theory to push for another policy, showing that both do harm. All this makes me excuse their occasional pro-intervention or government-oriented ideas, because it then seems more like they suggest these things given that the state exists anyway, rather than because they believe in the almighty powers of the state.

Read everything- believe nothing [and that includes all so-called "libertarian rags like "Reason" and "Liberty" etc., . Develop an ultra sensitive "B.S.. detection system" , and a sense of humor.

I can now listen to National Public Radio and laugh like a lunatic most of the time- it really is that funny .

As for deliberate humor, personally , the only magazine I actually look forward to reading every week these days is "The New Yorker" and even then, I only usually read the cartoons . And yes, the Economist often has a welcome sense of humor .

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

I'm not sure how TIME or Newsweek brainwashes anybody, since they are not force feeding anybody information (you can accept the information as accurate or you can disagree with it), but irregardless there are a lot of good articles which are published in both magazines from time to time (even if they do not have to do with economics, although I believe it was Newsweek which recently published Niall Ferguson's article on debt and the demise of empires).

TIME is packed to the gills with weasel words, false dichotomies, and very subtle controlling of the boundaries of debate. HEADLINE: "What should the US do about the financial market crisis?" Stuff like that. Almost every sentence is steeped in statist assumptions, so you get this nice subtle indoctrination from reading it, even when it seems to be totally neutral. The writers have this down to an art. I don't see how you can stand to read it week after week.

Like I said above, TIME is not neutral, but a sensible reader should know how to dissect information. I am, indeed, claiming that most readers of TIME do not fall into the category of "sensible readers" (just like many readers of Austrian literature). Despite all the "Statism", TIME does publish worthwhile articles every so often. However, Neewsweek is generally superior to TIME.

So, I went to Borders to pick up a book I ordered online. While I was waiting for them to retrieve my package, I picked up a copy of the new Foreign Affairs. I read an article with an obvious Malthusian twist, on how a growing population is bound to doom humanity or some such. It was so bad I decided to subscribe to Foreign Affairs for a year.

It isnt half the magazine it used to be, its now run by a beltway conservative and it shows. Now they take cheap potshots at their own founder (Pat Buchanan) over something Pat was correct about (WWII).

It isnt half the magazine it used to be, its now run by a beltway conservative and it shows. Now they take cheap potshots at their own founder (Pat Buchanan) over something Pat was correct about (WWII).

I have been reading it for years now without noticing a shift you describe. But since I am not from the US I get only a limited access (no .pdf version for me) so maybe that explains it. In any case I still see Buchanan writing for their blog.

Incidentally, The Economist considers itself a "newspaper" and not a magazine. A weekly newspaper printed on glossy paper and folded like a book, I guess. I used to read it all the time, but I slowed down a bit when I too noticed they've turned more leftist and statist lately despite proclaiming their love of "capitalism."

I'm curious, why do some of you not like Reason? Too watered down? I haven't read much from them so I don't know.

I know. It's just that some of the most interesting threads happen to be some of the oldest. What I really have in mind whenever I post questions is that others will take notice of the thread and respond.

Among them FAZ, Handelsblatt, NZZ, Spiegel, eigentümlich frei. Anyway I stopped with those some days ago. The best of them still was/is eigentümlich frei. It's close to liberal but with some heavy bias towards christianity. I'm a bit beyond that and have my serious doubts about it.

The problem with German newspapers is that it seems there are not many opintions left. Wel here and there a comment differs a bit, but the base is Government is good and Fiat-money is the best since sliced bread. We have a new religion here in Germany we pray for and to mother nature. The greens are the foreprayers of it. And so I learn in any newspaper, men is evil and the climat is waming or so.

Anyway I still read a few magazines.

Motorrad (irregular), Tourenfahrer, c't, iX, a magazine about the waste industry, schweizer Monat. Well that are special magazines outside the realm of politics

Unfortunatly in whole Germany there is IMHO not one newspaper that one could recommend. So what is left is going to here and/or the mises.de, or some Blogs to get at least something which can be a different political opinion.

I don't knwo if a liberal newspaper may have any chance here in Germany. I guess if it's true that support for Obama exceeds 90 % of the Germans population, the sad answer is. We have not many liberal/libertarians left. Well I guess that's nothing new in Germany, but may be a new experience in the US...

Most of the time, nothing. I do, infrequently, get the urge to read a magazine... but I walk into the store, read the headlines and just rage. Not going to putting down my hard-earned moneys for that kind of torture.

HOWEVER, when I fly, I often buy a copy of Forbes. Although the magazine is somewhat statist... Steve Forbes isn't that bad of a guy (often appearing along side Tom Woods... and they're not completely at ends), so I don't mind tolerating his magazine. Plus, 500 lists are always interesting, and their "investor advice" column is always a laugh... did you know that house prices have bottomed out , and due to upswing any time now? They really mean "any time"... because they've been saying it for atleast two years.